Complaint summary

Mr Pollet has complained that OCL have failed to process his transfer request which has caused him a financial loss.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against OCL because they should have made the transfer in reasonable time after Legal and General returned the completed discharge form.

Complaint summary

Mr Williams has complained that Hornbuckle Mitchell (the Plan’s Administrator) made a number of errors with the administration of his pension which has resulted in unauthorised payments totalling £537,357.08 and a potential additional tax liability for him.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s decision and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because Hornbuckle Mitchell did not:

Complaint summary

Mrs Jones has complained that her eligibility for ill health retirement has not been considered in a proper manner.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against SYP because they failed to consider Mrs Jones’ eligibility for a pension under Regulation 20 in a proper manner.

Complaint summary

Mr Sherratt complains against Cheshire West & Chester Council, the Administering Authority, because they supplied him with incorrect pension statements, which he relied on in order to take early retirement.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Cheshire West & Chester Council because they raised Mr Sherratt’s expectations by providing an incorrect statement.

Complaint summary

Miss Elliott complains that North East Lincolnshire NHS Care Trust Plus (Care Trust Plus), her former employer, have wrongly rejected her request for an early unreduced pension under the “rule of 85”.

Complaint summary

Mrs Hussain has complained that Birmingham did not consider her eligibility for ill health retirement, under Regulation 20 of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2007, in a proper manner.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Birmingham because they failed to consider Mrs Hussain’s eligibility for a pension under Regulation 20 in a proper manner.

Complaint summary

Ms B has complained that USS and the University refused to award her ill health retirement benefits from active service.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against both the University and USS as I have found maladministration in their consideration of Ms B’s retrospective application for ill health retirement benefits from active service.

Complaint summary

Mr Moore has complained that pension contributions which were deducted from his salary were not paid into the Plan by the Company.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because the Company failed to pay contributions (on Mr Moore’s behalf) within the required time frame.

Complaint summary

Mrs Stewart’s complaint against NHS Pensions is about their decision not to award her Mental Health Officer (MHO) status for parts of her service. She says NHS Pensions’ decision is unfair because she is aware of other staff who have retained their MHO status, despite having the same role as her.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against NHS Pensions because they failed to provide Mrs Stewart with appropriate information about why some of her MHO applications were declined.

Complaint summary

Mr X has complained that the NIPB have refused to refer his case for review under regulation 31(2) of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the NIPB because they have failed to take steps to establish whether or not Mr X is in receipt of the correct level of benefit.